Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1638(3)–(6), and (9) by not disclosing the amount financed, the finance charge, the annual percentage rate, the total of payments, the sale price, and the security interest. See Dkt. No. 1-2, pg. 14 (Pg. 20). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1638(b) and Regulation Z, 12 CFR §§ 226.17 and 226.18, by not giving Plaintiff a copy of the disclosures in a form that she could keep prior to signing the RISC. Dkt. No. 19, pg. 7 (Pg. ID 500). Plaintiff’s deposition testimony asserts that the RISC that she signed was blank when she signed it, except for the rebate section. Dkt. No. 18-1 at pg. 11 (Pg. ID 424). Plaintiff’s deposition testimony also asserts that Defendant Dealer did not give her any paperwork to take home with her before she signed the RISC— Plaintiff only received her registration after she had signed the RISC. Id. Plaintiff cannot provide any corroborating evidence that the RISC was not filled out when she signed it besides her own testimony. Id. at pg. 20 (Pg. ID 433). Additionally, no other evidence in the record supports Plaintiff’s testimony. Defendant Dealer claims that it provided Plaintiff with all the required disclosures when she received a copy of the RISC when she bought the 2016 Traverse. Dkt. No. 14, pg. 23 (Pg. ID 154). On page two of the RISC, Plaintiff signed directly below a statement indicating that before she signed the contract, “[Defendant Dealer] gave it to [her], and [Plaintiff was] free to take it and review it.” Dkt. No. 14-3, pg. 3 (Pg. ID 189 The statement also read, “[y]ou confirm that you received a completely filled-in copy when you signed it.” Id. Defendants also provided the affidavit of Brian Tellier, General Manager of Jefferson Chevrolet. Mr. Tellier testified that it was impossible for the RISC to only have the rebate amount of $7,826.00 filled in when Plaintiff signed it. Dkt. No. 14-7, pg. 3 (Pg. ID 201). This is because the software that generates the purchase documents can never print an incomplete form. Id. The software also cannot print on a previously signed, partially filled-in document. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s testimony that the rebate amount of $7,826.00 was filled in on the contract necessarily requires that the entire RISC was filled in. Id. at pg. 4 (Pg. ID 202).Wilson Andrew Roberts, Plaintiff’s salesperson in the RISC transaction, also provided a statement. Mr. Roberts stated that Plaintiff “was provided a complete and filled-in copy of all the purchase documents for her review, including the…RISC.” Dkt. No. 14-9, pg. 3 (Pg. ID 207). Other circuits have considered what constitutes sufficient evidence of compliance with the TILA. The Eighth Circuit has held that an acknowledgement signed by the appellants that they received a fully completed copy of the disclosure statement was prima facie proof of delivery. Whitlock v. Midwest Acceptance Corp., 575 F.2d 652, 653 (8th Cir. 1978). . . In this case, Plaintiff also signed a disclosure statement stating that she had received a copy of the RISC, and that the RISC was completely filled in before she signed it. However, Plaintiff’s deposition did not acknowledge that Defendant Dealer had explained portions of the RISC to her as it presently appears. Plaintiff stated in her deposition that Mr. Roberts explained the deal to her, but it was a different deal than what the filled-in RISC currently looks like. Dkt. No. 18-1, pg. 11 (Pg. ID 424). . . .In summary, this Court will deny summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s TILA claim. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony asserts that Plaintiff signed a nearly blank RISC. Defendants provide testimony from Mr. Tellier and Mr. Roberts that the RISC was not blank when Plaintiff signed it. This conflicting testimony presents a genuine dispute of material fact that prevents summary judgment. The fact that Plaintiff signed an acknowledgement that stated the RISC was filled in and that she reviewed it before she signed is not sufficient to grant summary judgment, as analyzed above. Therefore, this Court will deny summary judgment on Plaintiff’s TILA claim.